Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Sep 27;22(1):417.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-024-03627-1.

A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis of innovation and regulation in hearing health care

Isabelle Boisvert  1   2 , Samantha Cruz Rivera  3   4 , Jennifer Smith-Merry  5   6 , Barbara Molony-Oates  7 , Emily Kecman  5   6 , Sarah E Hughes  8   9
Affiliations

A qualitative reflexive thematic analysis of innovation and regulation in hearing health care

Isabelle Boisvert et al. BMC Med. .

Abstract

Background: The hearing health sector is an example of a health sector that is experiencing a period of rapid innovation driven by digital technologies. These innovations will impact the types of interventions and services available to support the communication of deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. This study explored the perceptions of informed participants on the topic of innovation and regulation within hearing healthcare in Australia and the United Kingdom (UK).

Methods: Participants (N = 29, Australia [n = 16], UK [n = 13]) were purposively sampled and joined one of two online workshops. Participants included adults with hearing loss and family members, hearing health professionals, academics/researchers, representatives of hearing device manufacturers, regulators and policymakers. Workshop data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results: Participants conceptualised the hearing health sector as a network of organisations and individuals with different roles, knowledge and interests, in a state of flux driven by innovation and regulation. Innovation and regulation were perceived as mechanisms to ensure quality and mitigate risk within a holistic approach to care. Innovations encompassed technological as well as non-technological innovations of potential benefit to consumers. Participants agreed it was essential for innovation and regulation to be congruent with societal values. Critical to ethical congruence was the involvement of consumers throughout both innovation and regulation stages, and the use of innovation and regulation to tackle stigma and reduce health disparities. Participants expressed the desire for accessible and inclusive innovation in the context of fair, transparent and trustworthy commercial practices.

Conclusions: This study explored how stakeholders within the hearing health sector understand and make sense of innovation and the role of regulation. Overall, and despite reservations relating to health care professionals' changing roles and responsibilities, innovation and regulation were conceptualised as beneficial when situated in the context of holistic, whole-person, models of care. The results of this study will inform considerations to support the development and implementation of innovations and regulation within the hearing sector and across other health sectors influenced by technological advances.

Keywords: Deafness; Digital health; Disability policy; Healthcare; Hearing loss; Innovation; Qualitative research; Regulation; Stakeholder perspectives; Thematic analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

IB is a named researcher on initiatives funded by Cochlear Ltd at other organisations, but her research initiatives, publications and views are independent of any commercial funding. SEH receives funding from Anthony Nolan, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC), West Midlands and the NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics at the University of Birmingham and the Research for Patient Benefit Programme. SEH declares personal fees from Cochlear, Pfizer, CIS Oncology, Astra Zeneca, Rinri Therapeutics, and Aparito outside the submitted work. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors. BMO's involvement in this piece of work is in a personal capacity and is not as a representative of the Health Research Authority, UK.

References

    1. Zahid A, Poulsen JK, Sharma R, Wingreen SC. A systematic review of emerging information technologies for sustainable data-centric health-care. Int J Med Inform. 2021;149:104420. - PubMed
    1. Bidoli C, Pegoraro V, Dal Mas F, Bagnoli C, Bert F, Bonin M, et al. Virtual hospitals: the future of the healthcare system? An expert consensus. J Telemed Telecare. 2023;0(0). 10.1177/1357633X231173006. - PubMed
    1. Wade VA, Karnon J, Elshaug AG, Hiller JE. A systematic review of economic analyses of telehealth services using real time video communication. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:1–13. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gentili A, Failla G, Melnyk A, Puleo V, Tanna GLD, Ricciardi W, Cascini F. The cost-effectiveness of digital health interventions: a systematic review of the literature. Front Public Health. 2022;10:787135. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bernstein LE, Besser J, Maidment DW, Swanepoel DW. Innovation in the context of audiology and in the context of the internet. Am J Audiol. 2018;27(3S):376–84. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources